| Topic: |
Sociology > Depression |
| User: |
"Charles" |
| Date: |
17 Jan 2007 10:09:21 PM |
| Object: |
some More Global Warming Stuff, Snow in Malibu |
http://knbc.nbcweatherplus.com/weathernews/10773559/detail.html
.
|
|
| User: "GlennT" |
|
| Title: Re: some More Global Warming Stuff, Snow in Malibu |
18 Jan 2007 04:28:58 AM |
|
|
Charles wrote:
http://knbc.nbcweatherplus.com/weathernews/10773559/detail.html
I hardly think snow equals global warming... do you? Climate change is
what we have whether (weather... pun see?) we like it or not.
.
|
|
|
| User: "cal" |
|
| Title: Re: some More Global Warming Stuff, Snow in Malibu |
18 Jan 2007 06:11:51 AM |
|
|
"GlennT" <trucage@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1169116138.257335.159000@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
Charles wrote:
http://knbc.nbcweatherplus.com/weathernews/10773559/detail.html
I hardly think snow equals global warming... do you? Climate change is
what we have whether (weather... pun see?) we like it or not.
didja ever see that twilight zone episode where a woman dreams it's getting
hotter and hotter because the earth is getting sucked in by the sun, and
wakes up near the end of the show to the reality that the opposite is true,
the earth has spun out of its orbit and is flying off into deep space, and
soon everyone will freeze to death?
well, whudever... but eastern canada is back into normal january crap this
week, while the eggheads will be only too happy to tell you that global
warming isn't a linear process of everything everywhere getting warmer all
the time, but more a chaotic one of the weather going more weird with an
overall warming trend that's observable over decades, not weeks, months or
years. i'm a lifelong skeptic, but that trend does seem to be there and
pretty much locked in.
.
|
|
|
| User: "CyberDroog" |
|
| Title: Re: some More Global Warming Stuff, Snow in Malibu |
18 Jan 2007 08:12:03 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 07:11:51 -0500, "cal" <cal1360@gmNOSPAMail.com> wrote:
well, whudever... but eastern canada is back into normal january crap this
week, while the eggheads will be only too happy to tell you that global
warming isn't a linear process of everything everywhere getting warmer all
the time, but more a chaotic one of the weather going more weird with an
overall warming trend that's observable over decades, not weeks, months or
years. i'm a lifelong skeptic, but that trend does seem to be there and
pretty much locked in.
Scientists can't even accurately predict the weather a week in advance. I
don't give much credence to predictions that are decades in advance,
especially since they have such an incredibly small historical record to
which to compare today's climate patterns. I'm speaking of scientific
measurements.
Scientists do know that the earth goes through cycles of warming and
cooling, and it has been doing it long before man arrived. What we are in
now is a warming period that is to be expected following the last ice age.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Platypus Rex" |
|
| Title: Re: some More Global Warming Stuff, Snow in Malibu |
18 Jan 2007 09:31:27 PM |
|
|
CyberDroog coughed this up:
Scientists can't even accurately predict the weather a week in advance. I
don't give much credence to predictions that are decades in advance,
especially since they have such an incredibly small historical record to
which to compare today's climate patterns. I'm speaking of scientific
measurements.
This is a common objection to climate study among non-scientists, but
unfortunately it's off-base. "The climate" is not the same thing as
"the weather". Weather prediction and planetary-scale climate modeling are
completely different problems. Put another way, the likelihood of a
meteorologist's prediction for tomorrow's high temperature at an exact
spot in your hometown being correct to within a tenth of a degree is quite
low, while the likelihood of a climatologist's prediction for the global
average temperature tomorrow being correct to within a tenth of a degree
is at the 99% level.
Please note that I am not making a statement about the sources of global
warming. I am merely saying that the analogy between climate modeling
and weather prediction is not a good one.
.
|
|
|
| User: "bunny" |
|
| Title: Re: some More Global Warming Stuff, Snow in Malibu |
19 Jan 2007 02:07:45 AM |
|
|
"Platypus Rex" <duckbill@ovoviviparous.mammals.org> wrote
Where the hell have you been?! I can never get mail through to you! I'll
love you forever and I can never find you!
I got really excited one time when I got a reply back from a mail I sent to
you, until I saw that the subject line was the same (something about
spleens, I think), but it turns out it was just one of my sisters replying.
Apparently I accidentally sent to her an email written to you. She wrote
back "Is this one of your freak friends from the Cacophony Society?", so
perhaps you didn't miss a heck of a lot. :-)
Not that I have much of interest to report currently; I'm still sort of
recovering with the heart stuff (big infarc, CHF) so I don't have a bunch of
excess energy to do anything interesting. It has made me cogitate a lot
about how I feel about mortality and all that stuff, in a good way.
Tell Saint Mary of the Immaculate Cow Shoes I still worship her superior
fashion sense and all-around general goodness.
Classicist!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Charles" |
|
| Title: Re: some More Global Warming Stuff, Snow in Malibu |
18 Jan 2007 11:50:31 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 21:31:27 -0600, Platypus Rex
<duckbill@ovoviviparous.mammals.org> wrote:
CyberDroog coughed this up:
Scientists can't even accurately predict the weather a week in advance. I
don't give much credence to predictions that are decades in advance,
especially since they have such an incredibly small historical record to
which to compare today's climate patterns. I'm speaking of scientific
measurements.
This is a common objection to climate study among non-scientists, but
unfortunately it's off-base. "The climate" is not the same thing as
"the weather". Weather prediction and planetary-scale climate modeling are
completely different problems. Put another way, the likelihood of a
meteorologist's prediction for tomorrow's high temperature at an exact
spot in your hometown being correct to within a tenth of a degree is quite
low, while the likelihood of a climatologist's prediction for the global
average temperature tomorrow being correct to within a tenth of a degree
is at the 99% level.
This may be true, but I find it difficult to believe that global
temperature can be predicted, or even measured to that accuracy.
Well, predicted, but not accurately. finding a thermometer with that
specified accuracy is difficult and expensive, a vast array of them
would be needed to measure all parts of the globe to specify what the
temperature is right now.
Please note that I am not making a statement about the sources of global
warming. I am merely saying that the analogy between climate modeling
and weather prediction is not a good one.
.
|
|
|
| User: "cal" |
|
| Title: Re: some More Global Warming Stuff, Snow in Malibu |
19 Jan 2007 08:30:21 AM |
|
|
"Charles" <ckraft@SPAMTRAP.west.net> wrote in message
news:com0r2por9n0uink4cvfkar72tc70trcdg@4ax.com...
On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 21:31:27 -0600, Platypus Rex
<duckbill@ovoviviparous.mammals.org> wrote:
CyberDroog coughed this up:
Scientists can't even accurately predict the weather a week in advance.
I
don't give much credence to predictions that are decades in advance,
especially since they have such an incredibly small historical record to
which to compare today's climate patterns. I'm speaking of scientific
measurements.
This is a common objection to climate study among non-scientists, but
unfortunately it's off-base. "The climate" is not the same thing as
"the weather". Weather prediction and planetary-scale climate modeling
are
completely different problems. Put another way, the likelihood of a
meteorologist's prediction for tomorrow's high temperature at an exact
spot in your hometown being correct to within a tenth of a degree is quite
low, while the likelihood of a climatologist's prediction for the global
average temperature tomorrow being correct to within a tenth of a degree
is at the 99% level.
This may be true, but I find it difficult to believe that global
temperature can be predicted, or even measured to that accuracy.
Well, predicted, but not accurately. finding a thermometer with that
specified accuracy is difficult and expensive, a vast array of them
would be needed to measure all parts of the globe to specify what the
temperature is right now.
oddly enough, i just brought in the paper and this is from this morning's
front page:
---------------------
Landmark UN study backs climate theory
2,000 scientists all but end the debate: Human activity causes global
warming
January 19, 2007
Peter Gorrie
Environment Writer
A major new United Nations report shows global scientists are more convinced
than ever that human activity is causing climate change, the Toronto Star
has learned.
The rate of warming between now and 2030 is likely to be twice that of the
previous century, it says.
And it concludes that most of the global warming since the middle of the
last century has been caused by man-made greenhouse gases.
The report, to be released in Paris Feb. 2, should all but end any debate on
climate change and compel governments and industries to take urgent measures
to deal with it, scientists say.
"It is very likely that (man-made) greenhouse gas increases caused most of
the globally average temperature increases since the mid-20th century,"
states the report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
In the clinical language of science, it paints a stark picture of the
effects of greenhouse gas emissions:
"Discernible human influences now extend to other aspects of climate,
including continental average temperatures, atmospheric circulation patterns
and some types of extremes."
It is "very likely that hot extremes, heat waves and heavy precipitation
events will continue to become more frequent." Storm tracks will move from
the tropics toward the poles.
The widely anticipated report is the fourth by the IPCC, which every few
years publishes the definitive conclusions of about 2,000 scientists who are
recognized as experts in their respective fields. Each one has moved closer
to closing debate on the causes and effects of climate change.
The portion of the report obtained by the Star is called the final draft of
the "Summary for Policy Makers."
The summary states that the warming effect of greenhouse gases increased by
20 per cent during the past decade - "the largest change observed or
inferred for any decade in at least the last 200 years."
Global warming would be even greater had it not been slowed by other forms
of pollution that stopped some of the sun's energy from reaching the Earth.
Rebutting one of the main arguments of climate change skeptics, it says
observations of temperature increases and shrinking ice cover, "support the
conclusion that it is extremely unlikely that global climate change of the
past 50 years" was caused by solar flares or other natural events.
Eleven of the past 12 years have been the hottest in Earth's recent history,
it says.
All the continents except Antarctica have warmed during the past
half-century, with the biggest impacts in Canada's Arctic and other northern
regions.
Research since the third report was released in 2001 increases the certainty
about climate change and the likely scale of most of its effects, including
warmer temperatures and severe weather, the report states.
One crucial prediction has been made a bit less worrying: Although sea level
is rising - for now, mainly because the oceans are warming to a depth of at
least 3,000 metres, and expanding - the estimates for how much it will go up
have been lowered.
The summary also notes that there has been, as yet, little change in the
North Atlantic Drift, the warm current that gives Britain and northern
Europe a relatively temperate climate and that is expected to slow, or stop,
as climate change alters the ocean.
It will slow, but not abruptly during the coming century, the report says.
For the most part, though, the conclusions point in a single direction:
"Warming of the climate system is unequivocal."
The report estimates that if the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere
could be kept below 550 parts per million - which would take a major
worldwide effort to cut greenhouse gas emissions - the average global
temperature would rise by 2 to 4.5 degrees Celsius above the level before
the Industrial Revolution started about 250 years ago.
The current carbon level is about 380 parts per million and rising steadily,
compared with 280 at the time humans began burning large amounts of coal,
oil and other fossil fuels.
The temperature estimate depends on which combination of computer model and
research data is used.
The upper forecast is higher than in previous reports.
"Values higher than 4.5 C cannot be excluded" because of "feedbacks," such
as the increased ability of the atmosphere to absorb water vapour - an
extremely potent greenhouse gas - as it heats up, and the greater warmth
absorbed as Arctic ice melts.
Regional forecasts of climate change effects are better than in the previous
report, and they predict the greatest warming at northern latitudes and high
altitudes, and the least over the North Atlantic and the southern oceans.
The north faces the biggest increase in precipitation.
.
|
|
|
| User: "CyberDroog" |
|
| Title: Re: some More Global Warming Stuff, Snow in Malibu |
19 Jan 2007 12:15:11 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 09:30:21 -0500, "cal" <cal1360@gmNOSPAMail.com> wrote:
Landmark UN study backs climate theory
2,000 scientists all but end the debate: Human activity causes global
warming
And as usual they back that up with data from the last 100 years or so. The
earth has been here for around 4 billion years, but these guys are clever
enough to extrapolate 100 years of data into doomsday.
You know, if these guys are so smart, why don't they pool their brains and
come up with an energy source that violates all known laws of physics?
.
|
|
|
| User: "elegy" |
|
| Title: Re: some More Global Warming Stuff, Snow in Malibu |
19 Jan 2007 12:22:51 PM |
|
|
long ago and far away, CyberDroog <CyberDroog@ClockworkOrange.com> did
say:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 09:30:21 -0500, "cal" <cal1360@gmNOSPAMail.com> wrote:
Landmark UN study backs climate theory
2,000 scientists all but end the debate: Human activity causes global
warming
And as usual they back that up with data from the last 100 years or so. The
earth has been here for around 4 billion years, but these guys are clever
enough to extrapolate 100 years of data into doomsday.
You know, if these guys are so smart, why don't they pool their brains and
come up with an energy source that violates all known laws of physics?
doomsday for us humans, maybe, but certainly not for life or even
really for the planet, i would expect. there've been numerous mass
extinctions where most of the lifeforms die off, but, still, things go
on.
--
"i don't condone the liquefaction of pixies!" (kilgore trout)
http://shattering.org
x-no-archive:yes in the headers
.
|
|
|
| User: "CyberDroog" |
|
| Title: Re: some More Global Warming Stuff, Snow in Malibu |
20 Jan 2007 06:18:44 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 13:22:51 -0500, elegy <elegy@shatteringDOGPOOP.org>
wrote:
long ago and far away, CyberDroog <CyberDroog@ClockworkOrange.com> did
say:
And as usual they back that up with data from the last 100 years or so. The
earth has been here for around 4 billion years, but these guys are clever
enough to extrapolate 100 years of data into doomsday.
You know, if these guys are so smart, why don't they pool their brains and
come up with an energy source that violates all known laws of physics?
doomsday for us humans, maybe, but certainly not for life or even
really for the planet, i would expect. there've been numerous mass
extinctions where most of the lifeforms die off, but, still, things go
on.
Without a doubt. The dinosaurs are the most popular example, but their is
evidence of many other mass extinctions.
As best we know, we survived one of the last ones. Humans came out of the
last ice age stronger and smarter.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas Dehn" |
|
| Title: Re: some More Global Warming Stuff, Snow in Malibu |
19 Jan 2007 03:31:29 PM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
"CyberDroog" <CyberDroog@ClockworkOrange.com> wrote:
Scientists do know that the earth goes through cycles of warming and
cooling, and it has been doing it long before man arrived. What we are in
now is a warming period that is to be expected following the last ice age.
You don't even know what an ice age *is*,
and thus are in no position to make such a statement.
There are two reasonably correct usages for the term "ice age".
In one meaning, the current ice age began several million of years ago.
In the other meaning, the last ice age ended about 10,000 years ago.
Thomas
.
|
|
|
| User: "used2be" |
|
| Title: Re: some More Global Warming Stuff, Snow in Malibu |
19 Jan 2007 03:57:52 PM |
|
|
"Thomas Dehn" <thomas-usenet@arcor.de> wrote in message
news:51crouF1hisboU2@mid.individual.net...
x-no-archive: yes
"CyberDroog" <CyberDroog@ClockworkOrange.com> wrote:
Scientists do know that the earth goes through cycles of warming and
cooling, and it has been doing it long before man arrived. What we are in
now is a warming period that is to be expected following the last ice
age.
You don't even know what an ice age *is*,
and thus are in no position to make such a statement.
There are two reasonably correct usages for the term "ice age".
In one meaning, the current ice age began several million of years ago.
In the other meaning, the last ice age ended about 10,000 years ago.
hey thomas!!!! how on earth have you been, hunny?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas Dehn" |
|
| Title: Re: some More Global Warming Stuff, Snow in Malibu |
20 Jan 2007 04:45:33 AM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
"used2be" <used2be@nowhere.com> wrote:
hey thomas!!!! how on earth have you been, hunny?
Sleepless.
Thomas
.
|
|
|
| User: "used2be" |
|
| Title: Re: some More Global Warming Stuff, Snow in Malibu |
20 Jan 2007 10:48:58 AM |
|
|
"Thomas Dehn" <thomas-usenet@arcor.de> wrote in message
news:51ea45F1i1itqU2@mid.individual.net...
x-no-archive: yes
"used2be" <used2be@nowhere.com> wrote:
hey thomas!!!! how on earth have you been, hunny?
Sleepless.
:/
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "CyberDroog" |
|
| Title: Re: some More Global Warming Stuff, Snow in Malibu |
20 Jan 2007 06:24:04 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 22:31:29 +0100, "Thomas Dehn" <thomas-usenet@arcor.de>
wrote:
"CyberDroog" <CyberDroog@ClockworkOrange.com> wrote:
Scientists do know that the earth goes through cycles of warming and
cooling, and it has been doing it long before man arrived. What we are in
now is a warming period that is to be expected following the last ice age.
You don't even know what an ice age *is*,
and thus are in no position to make such a statement.
There are two reasonably correct usages for the term "ice age".
In one meaning, the current ice age began several million of years ago.
In the other meaning, the last ice age ended about 10,000 years ago.
You say I don't know what an ice age is, and then give two different
definitions. Huh? My statement clearly falls within the second meaning you
stated.
There is not enough evidence to definitively state whether we are in the
end of an ice age, or at the beginning of another one. It's just a guess
since ice ages tend to erase a lot of the evidence.
.
|
|
|
| User: "GlennT" |
|
| Title: Re: some More Global Warming Stuff, Snow in Malibu |
20 Jan 2007 08:01:54 AM |
|
|
CyberDroog wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 22:31:29 +0100, "Thomas Dehn" <thomas-usenet@arcor.de>
wrote:
"CyberDroog" <CyberDroog@ClockworkOrange.com> wrote:
Scientists do know that the earth goes through cycles of warming and
cooling, and it has been doing it long before man arrived. What we are in
now is a warming period that is to be expected following the last ice age.
You don't even know what an ice age *is*,
and thus are in no position to make such a statement.
There are two reasonably correct usages for the term "ice age".
In one meaning, the current ice age began several million of years ago.
In the other meaning, the last ice age ended about 10,000 years ago.
You say I don't know what an ice age is, and then give two different
definitions. Huh? My statement clearly falls within the second meaning you
stated.
There is not enough evidence to definitively state whether we are in the
end of an ice age, or at the beginning of another one. It's just a guess
since ice ages tend to erase a lot of the evidence.
Ice ages tend to follow unusual weather patterns. I read some
interesting stuff on this ages ago but unfortunately I can't reference
it right now.
One of the other things I remember is that no Ice Age is typical or
symptomatic. They each have their own story. It seems that if the Earth
gets crazy an Ice Age occurs to balance things out. Nature seems to be
largely about balance, from electricity through to protien evolution it
is about atoms needing what they need. Even the latest data on DNA
indicates that protiens formed by the three DNA systems that exist
(double helix, single helix and the clumpy one I can't think of the
name of) seem to follow some need that is still not understood but
evident.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas Dehn" |
|
| Title: Re: some More Global Warming Stuff, Snow in Malibu |
20 Jan 2007 04:38:49 PM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
"CyberDroog" <CyberDroog@ClockworkOrange.com> wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 22:31:29 +0100, "Thomas Dehn" <thomas-usenet@arcor.de>
wrote:
"CyberDroog" <CyberDroog@ClockworkOrange.com> wrote:
Scientists do know that the earth goes through cycles of warming and
cooling, and it has been doing it long before man arrived. What we are in
now is a warming period that is to be expected following the last ice age.
You don't even know what an ice age *is*,
and thus are in no position to make such a statement.
There are two reasonably correct usages for the term "ice age".
In one meaning, the current ice age began several million of years ago.
In the other meaning, the last ice age ended about 10,000 years ago.
You say I don't know what an ice age is, and then give two different
definitions.
Its not unsual for the scientific definition to be different from
the laymen understanding. This time, it didn't mean which one
you were using, both would not have made any sense.
Huh? My statement clearly falls within the second meaning you
stated.
No, obviously not.
There is not enough evidence to definitively state whether we are in the
end of an ice age, or at the beginning of another one.
See, thats where you are wrong. If you are using the laymen understanding
that the last ice age was when Europe was covered under glaciers (the
scientific term for that would be a "glacial period"),
then that ended approximately 10,000 years ago. With that use
of language, we cannot possibly be at the end of an ice age, and
the end of the last glacial period, approximately 10,000 years ago,
does not explain rising temperatures now.
Thomas
.
|
|
|
| User: "CyberDroog" |
|
| Title: Re: some More Global Warming Stuff, Snow in Malibu |
20 Jan 2007 10:34:08 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 20 Jan 2007 23:38:49 +0100, "Thomas Dehn" <thomas-usenet@arcor.de>
wrote:
"CyberDroog" <CyberDroog@ClockworkOrange.com> wrote:
There is not enough evidence to definitively state whether we are in the
end of an ice age, or at the beginning of another one.
See, thats where you are wrong. If you are using the laymen understanding
that the last ice age was when Europe was covered under glaciers (the
scientific term for that would be a "glacial period"),
then that ended approximately 10,000 years ago. With that use
of language, we cannot possibly be at the end of an ice age, and
the end of the last glacial period, approximately 10,000 years ago,
does not explain rising temperatures now.
You can use whatever terms you want. The fact remains that they simply
don't know.
And don't forget that you are where you are because of a warming period
that lead to the population of Europe by humans.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "GlennT" |
|
| Title: Re: some More Global Warming Stuff, Snow in Malibu |
18 Jan 2007 06:30:47 AM |
|
|
cal wrote:
"GlennT" <trucage@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1169116138.257335.159000@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
Charles wrote:
http://knbc.nbcweatherplus.com/weathernews/10773559/detail.html
I hardly think snow equals global warming... do you? Climate change is
what we have whether (weather... pun see?) we like it or not.
didja ever see that twilight zone episode where a woman dreams it's getting
hotter and hotter because the earth is getting sucked in by the sun, and
wakes up near the end of the show to the reality that the opposite is true,
the earth has spun out of its orbit and is flying off into deep space, and
soon everyone will freeze to death?
well, whudever... but eastern canada is back into normal january crap this
week, while the eggheads will be only too happy to tell you that global
warming isn't a linear process of everything everywhere getting warmer all
the time, but more a chaotic one of the weather going more weird with an
overall warming trend that's observable over decades, not weeks, months or
years. i'm a lifelong skeptic, but that trend does seem to be there and
pretty much locked in.
We have had 10,000 years or so of temperate and moderate weather. That
is the unusual thing and it has enabled the human race to flourish in
all its ignorant misunderstanding of geological time. We are
predictably headed for the fifth Ice Age is my opinion. Had to happen
sooner or later. The Earth has been doing this for millenia and we go
"oh wow, it must be us"!
.
|
|
|
| User: "CyberDroog" |
|
| Title: Re: some More Global Warming Stuff, Snow in Malibu |
18 Jan 2007 08:14:28 PM |
|
|
On 18 Jan 2007 04:30:47 -0800, "GlennT" <trucage@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
cal wrote:
well, whudever... but eastern canada is back into normal january crap this
week, while the eggheads will be only too happy to tell you that global
warming isn't a linear process of everything everywhere getting warmer all
the time, but more a chaotic one of the weather going more weird with an
overall warming trend that's observable over decades, not weeks, months or
years. i'm a lifelong skeptic, but that trend does seem to be there and
pretty much locked in.
We have had 10,000 years or so of temperate and moderate weather. That
is the unusual thing and it has enabled the human race to flourish in
all its ignorant misunderstanding of geological time. We are
predictably headed for the fifth Ice Age is my opinion. Had to happen
sooner or later. The Earth has been doing this for millenia and we go
"oh wow, it must be us"!
And another ice age should be no cause for alarm. Even an elderly woman
with a walker can outrun a glacier.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
I need some more advice,please.
LISA IN MASS, could we get some more tea towels?
RIP
more interior pics of old house. i made some funny. (sp silly *****)
OK , OK , I RAKED SOME , I COULD DO MORE BUT
Some More New(?) News
Want 1 more chance? Some helpful links!
OK , TIME FOR SOME MORE ZZZZ
| BORKED PSEUDO MAILED,could we get some more tea towels?
HUMBLE LIFE, could we get some more tea towels?
Damn I want to play some more
ned, could we get some more tea towels?
%, could we get some more tea towels?
SLUNKY,could we get some more tea towels?
Maybe I need to add some more interactive pets to my family
|
|
|
